SARDAR PATEL INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED

VS

GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK

MARKETING FEDERATION

TANYA ANUPAM - 2020200002

SIDDHARTH WARRIER - 2020200067
MEET SHRIMANKAR - 2020300067
DILIP PATEL - 2020300051
REPORT OUTLINE

CONTENTS
Introduction
Facts
Issues for consideration
Contentions of AMUL
Contentions of HUL
Observations of the Court
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, comparative advertising has
become a popular tool among companies to
promote their products by comparing them to
a competitor’s products.
Honest and non-misleading comparisons are
fair play to advertise your products and give
them an edge over others.
However, when the comparison results in
defaming and disparaging the goods of the
competitors, it results in product
disparagement.
One such case of comparative advertising that is
currently in the limelight is Hindustan Unilever
Limited vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing
Federation5 which is discussed in this
presentation.
FACTS

AMUL aired two advertisements that compared Amul's

'Ice-cream' with other 'frozen desserts'.
With this visual in place, the voice-over then clarifies
that Amul "ice cream" is made from "real milk" as
opposed to "frozen desserts" which are made of
Vanaspati.
The advertisement also made an appeal to the
customers to check the packaging for ingredients
before making a purchase.
FACTS

In the second advertisement, the voice-over and

disclaimer substitute ‘Vanaspati ten' with ‘Vanaspati'.
HUL claimed that the advertisements criticized all
the products sold under the category 'frozen
desserts' and by extension mocked HUL’s products
The Bombay High Court raised several relevant
issues but the subject of this article here was,
whether the television commercials aired by AMUL
amounted to product criticism of frozen desserts
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

To understand the case, the Court had to

differentiate between 2 points:
1. The difference in contents of ice-cream and frozen desserts.
2. The difference between comparative advertising and product
disparagement.
CONTENTIONS OF AMUL

The main contentions of Amul were

that while comparing television
advertisements, a frame by frame
analysis of the advertisements should
be avoided as in comparative
advertisement, puffery of its own
products is allowed.
Amul also contended that an alert
and aware customer can easily
understand that ‘vanaspati tel’ refers
to vegetable oil and not ‘Dalda’.
CONTENTIONS OF HUL

HUL contended that by showing

vanaspati flowing into a cup, Amul
wanted to portray that all frozen
desserts contain only
vanaspati/vanaspati oil which
translates to Dalda and is admittedly
bad for health.
HUL clarified that Kwality Wall’s range
of ‘frozen desserts’ do not contain
vanaspati.
CONTENTIONS OF THE
PARTIES

Kwality Wall’s range of frozen

desserts contains milk/milk solids.
The only difference is that frozen
desserts use vegetable fat instead of
dairy fat
which actually makes them healthier
as they have lower saturated fat and
do not have cholester
OBSERVA TIONS IN THE COURT
The Court held that by indicating that all frozen desserts use only
vanaspati/vanaspati oil, Amul had disparaged the entire category of
frozen desserts in general.
HUL and Vadilal, had produced substantial evidence to assert that
they did not in fact use vanaspati/vanaspati oil in making their
products.
To address the 2nd point, the Court looked into Reckitt and Colman
of India Limited vs M.P Ramachandran and Another, Dabur India Ltd
vs Colgate Palmolive and Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Vs Initiative
Media Advertising.
 For there to be product disparagement,
there has to be three key ingredients:
1. a false/misleading statement regarding
the goods,
2. that deceived consumers and
3. was likely to influence consumer
behavior.
In the present case, Amul's TVCs had not
only made a false statement regarding
the constituents of frozen desserts but
had done so with the intention to
potentially deceive ordinary customers
who are aware of the health issues
associated with vanaspati.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that:
a manufacturer or a tradesman is entitled to boast that his goods
are the best in the world, even if such a claim is factually
incorrect, and
that while a claim that the goods of a manufacturer or the
tradesman are the best may not provide a cause of action to any
other trader or manufacturer of similar goods, but the moment
the rival manufacturer or trader disparages or defames the goods
of another manufacturer or trader, the aggrieved trader would be
entitled to seek relief including redressal by way of a prohibitory
injunction.
The Court granted an injunction to HUL and restrained AMUL from
airing the TV commercials and upheld the generic disparagement of
'frozen desserts'.
 It held that "the content, intent, manner
and storyline of the impugned TVCs seen as
a whole, convey a false, untruthful,
malicious and negative message" thereby
disparaging "the entire category of
products known as Frozen Desserts of
which the Plaintiff is a market leader" and
"also disparaging the products
manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff and
adversely affecting the business of the
Plaintiff."
THANK YOU